If the NSA argues that it is information that hasn't got any privacy implications because it is just the meta-data, why would the information need to be classified? Obviously it doesn't matter who has the information.

Oh, there's a way.

NSA can claim that turning over the data would reveal information about how it is collected from providers or sorted by the NSA, revealing details about how PRISM runs, for example - it only has to pass the most basic smell test (rotten garbage is OK, dead hooker is not).

NSA can also (IIRC) take the judge (and both lawyers?) aside and explain [REDACTED] - or even a one-line note from Holder or the DNI - so now the judge sides with the NSA that this info is secret. For the purposes of the trial, it doesn't exist.

But NSA will absolutely try to have its cake ("secret" metadata collection) and eat it too (not have to provide it to individuals to prove their innocence).

// THIS is part of the Pandora's Box we were warning you about for the last 4 presidential terms

I keep hearing people saying that they don't care about the NSA spying on them because they're not significant. You have to think beyond yourself. What about the next Martin Luther? The next Joan of Arc? The next Martin Luther King Junior? The next John F. Kennedy? The next John Lennon? The next George Washington?

That's what's so insidious about this -- They're spying on EVERYBODY -- Terrorists and scoundrels, sure. But also America's thinkers, philosophers, teachers, lawyers, politicians, judges, reformers, leaders, and yes all you plumbers, construction workers, and cubicle dwellers, too. Just because you can't think big doesn't mean the government should stop other people from doing so.

Remember, Barack Obama was a "community organizer" before he was a politician. That's a code word for "rabble rouser." Now the government has the ability to instantly detect these "rabble rousers" and do what? Help them them? Ignore them? Or prevent them from becoming the next Martin Luther, the next John Lennon, or the next president?

Just because you don't care about your personal privacy doesn't mean there isn't a reason to care about the concept of personal privacy.

Kahabut:The NSA has no interest, no reason, and no precedent of playing ball here. Meaning that if they even bother to respond, it's going to be a perfunctory "no records".

Legally, they are required to hand over those records. But Legally, you can't actually force them to do so without prior evidence of the records existence, and you don't have that, despite Prism breaking in the news.

You can play a longer game, though, by subpoenaing both the NSA phone records and calling a MetroPCS rep as a witness. If you have evidence that PCS turned over the records, you can question the witness. They can't plead the 5th - it's not an illegal action. So they can either perjure themselves, or indicate that "yes, the NSA did receive the records." At which point it can be shown that the government has refused to turn over exculpatory evidence.

If the NSA argues that it is information that hasn't got any privacy implications because it is just the meta-data, why would the information need to be classified? Obviously it doesn't matter who has the information.

nmrsnr:Um, what records does the NSA have that were not previously available through your phone company? Since the phone company gave the NSA the records in the first place, I don't see what new evidence this could possibly bring to light.

Someone didn't rtfa. His phone company doesn't have records back that far, but it appears the NSA might.

Jacob_Roberson:ladyfortuna: You might get a more clear idea what I meant if you look at the URL...

That's what I thought, but he just seemed so serious. Also that guy confuses me in general: The name says chick, the beard says dude, the first name says chick, but the first name also says suicide bomber. The last name says French but the accent says American. The last name says cattle but the clothing says he's human. And the face says clone of Wil Wheaton.

trippdogg:nmrsnr: Um, what records does the NSA have that were not previously available through your phone company? Since the phone company gave the NSA the records in the first place, I don't see what new evidence this could possibly bring to light.

This.

The only news here is that some people are farking morons, and that's not news.

Gyrfalcon:This concept that the NSA (or anyone) has some stash of phone records that would "prove" Mr. X was somewhere else despite the prosecution's claim that he was at the scene of the crime, and they are feloniously hiding this proof is just mind-boggling. Or, in the case of a financial crime, if the "proof" is that certain wire transfers did not take place, the NSA wouldn't be magically hiding that evidence that Mr. X's attorney couldn't get some other way.

But either way, what Mr. X needs is A DATE (or dates). Either there is proof of that date or transaction--which he has--or there isn't. More records before or after that date from the NSA isn't going to make him more innocent just because there are more of them. And if they say "No, we don't have any evidence that Mr. X called from the Bahamas, but we do have evidence he was in New York just like the prosecutor says," what does that prove? Can he still insist Well, they have the exonerating evidence in their vaults but they're refusing to release it? How paranoid do we let him get before we admit there just IS NO EVIDENCE?

First of all, the entire reason for the surveillance is the detection of criminals via computational review of cell phone data. Maybe the contents of phone calls; maybe not. But certainly the data regarding the phone calls their selves. Where they were made from, when they were made, and to whom they were made. This much has already been established and isn't even being denied.

If a defendant is accused of being at a certain location committing a murder and knows he or she made a cell phone call from a different geographical location to a certain person, what's the harm in using the NSA's records to establish this exculpatory evidence? After all "National Security" is not exclusionary. It is the sum of all personal securities in the country. We pay for this agency. Why should its records be denied us when they might be useful in providing our security from unjust imprisonment? DNA evidence is already used both ways.

Kahabut:Can you prove they have the records? No of course you can't. Case closed. "No such record exists". The irony here is that is how unions typically deal with discovery requests they don't like. They simply say "we have no such record" and unless you can prove otherwise, you are screwed. Meanwhile the record you want is in the box, right where it should be, and no one ever even looked.

As long as the jury is bound by "reasonable doubt", the government's refusal to provide records we now know them to have is more than sufficient grounds for acquittal. The defense attorney only need reference them as "prejudicially-withheld, factually-existent-but-officially-'non-existent', potentially-exculpatory record-evidence" in their arguments and/ or statements to signal to the jury that the government is systemically "dealing from the bottom of the deck" in adjudicating the case at hand. Any conscientious juror will immediately understand the government is deliberately withholding crucial evidence in the case, and jury-nullification will result.

Remember: they are all on the same team. You, as a juror are *not* part of that team. You are the very last line of defense the defendant has to keep the governmental juggernaut from steamrolling them.

skinink:"It might be a sincere attempt to clear his client, or it might be the single most audacious delaying tactic a lawyer has ever employed. "Even it's a delaying tactic, they lawyer is supposed to do what's best for his client. At least he's trying something and especially if the defendant is innocent as he claims.

nmrsnr:Um, what records does the NSA have that were not previously available through your phone company? Since the phone company gave the NSA the records in the first place, I don't see what new evidence this could possibly bring to light.

johnnieconnie:...and the NSA will just stamp a big NO! on the request and that will be that.

It will still potentially scuttle a lot of criminal cases, if the defense can convince the jury that the prosecution (the government) is withholding exoneratory evidence. At very least, it's a headache for prosecutors.

nmrsnr:Um, what records does the NSA have that were not previously available through your phone company? Since the phone company gave the NSA the records in the first place, I don't see what new evidence this could possibly bring to light.

I think the phone company is required (and internet companies) to keep your records for 6 months only. That might be a factor.

Um, what records does the NSA have that were not previously available through your phone company? Since the phone company gave the NSA the records in the first place, I don't see what new evidence this could possibly bring to light.